Background
Héctor Maldonado-Maldonado assaulted a senior corrections officer while incarcerated in August 2020 and pleaded guilty to assaulting, resisting, or impeding a federal officer. At his initial sentencing in August 2022, the district court imposed 78 months in prison using sentencing guidelines that deviated from the plea agreement, leading the government to concede breach. On first appeal, the First Circuit vacated and remanded for resentencing before a different judge.
At resentencing in May 2025, the district court imposed 71 months. However, in justifying this sentence, the court referenced five disciplinary violations that Maldonado incurred between October 2022 and March 2025 — violations that were not included in the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) and were communicated to the court only through an ex parte discussion with the probation officer, without notice to or opportunity for rebuttal by the defense.
Maldonado objected at sentencing, but the district court proceeded to rely on these violations in assessing his rehabilitation prospects and recidivism risk. Maldonado appealed, challenging both the district court’s consideration of materials from the prior breached sentencing and its reliance on the undisclosed disciplinary violations.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit held that the district court did not violate the appellate mandate by reviewing materials from the initial sentencing hearing. The court emphasized that its prior decision enforced obligations only against the government, not the district court, and that sentencing courts have broad discretion to consider information on their docket. Because Maldonado received a resentencing before a different judge with the government adhering to its plea agreement obligations, he obtained the “clean slate” the appellate remedy was designed to provide.
However, the court found reversible error in the district court’s consideration of the five recent disciplinary violations. The First Circuit established that although courts may communicate ex parte with probation officers, “a convicted defendant has the right to be sentenced on the basis of accurate and reliable information, and . . . implicit in this right is the opportunity to rebut the evidence and the information to be considered by the court.” The court cannot rely on new and significant factual information from a probation officer without disclosing it to the defendant and providing an opportunity to respond. Because Maldonado had no notice that these violations would be considered, the procedural error was clear.
The court rejected the government’s harmlessness argument, finding the sentencing transcript showed the district court relied on the violations in assessing rehabilitation and recidivism despite some equivocal statements. The court noted the violations were particularly significant because they were the most recent conduct relevant to Maldonado’s changed behavior claim, occurring just three months before resentencing. The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing before a different district judge.
Key Takeaways
- Defendants have a constitutional right to be sentenced on accurate, reliable information with an opportunity to rebut facts the court will consider.
- Factual information obtained ex parte from a probation officer must be disclosed to the defendant and cannot be relied upon if it is both new (not in the court record) and material to sentencing.
- Proximity between a court’s reference to a fact and the pronouncement of sentence supports an inference that the court relied on that fact.
- When a district court relies on undisclosed ex parte information at sentencing, remand to a different judge is the appropriate remedy, consistent with precedent in plea breach cases.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces essential due process protections in federal sentencing, particularly when courts consider disciplinary or behavioral information obtained through probation officers. Even in resentencings, defendants retain the right to know what evidence the court will rely upon and the opportunity to respond. The ruling prevents defendants from being unfairly prejudiced by information they could not anticipate or contest, a particularly important safeguard when recent conduct (like post-sentencing disciplinary violations) is the basis for assessing rehabilitation and recidivism.
The case also clarifies the intersection of plea breach remedies and procedural safeguards: while a resentencing before a different judge provides a meaningful fresh start after government breach of a plea agreement, that fresh start does not permit the court to circumvent disclosure requirements by obtaining damaging information ex parte from probation officers. This balance protects both the integrity of plea agreements and fundamental fairness in the sentencing process.